Meta

Category: FBI

In these pages, I’ve emphasized that mainstream news often fails to follow up on their own stories.

They publish a shocking account of a scandal, and then they drop it like a hot potato.

Why? There are several reasons, but the most important is: the scandal is too revealing. It indicts an institution or organization that, in the long run, must be protected.

In 2014-15, stories appeared in the press about the phenomenal corruption of the FBI evidence lab. But since then, there has been very little follow-up. I find no compelling evidence that the federal government has fixed the problem.

Here is a sample of the 2014-15 stories:

April 20, 2015, The Atlantic: “…the Washington Post made clear Saturday in an article that begins with a punch to the gut… ‘Nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000,’ the newspaper reported, adding that ‘the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death’.”

August 12, 2014, New Scientist: “…the initial results were released of an ongoing review of thousands of criminal cases in which FBI scientists’ testimony may have led to wrongful convictions – including for some people now on death row…[an FBI source states] ’we teach these people [lab techs in training] for two weeks, and they would go back to their laboratories with a certificate of completion and be told: Great you’re qualified to do this [analysis of evidence] – here’s your caseload.’”

Washington Post, April 18, 2015: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”

“Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.”

“The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions.”

Giant long-term scandal and corruption. The story is covered. Then it disappears.

Here is one reason why. If the press outlets continued to search out every aspect of the story, they would come upon numerous prosecutors who routinely relied on false FBI lab reports in trials. Some of those prosecutors would be exposed for knowingly accepting fake evidence from the FBI, in order to make their cases.

The scandal would spread like ink on a blotter.

Major media news picks their spots. They choose to pound on certain stories day after day, in an effort to convince the public of certain “facts.” They studiously refuse to dig and keep digging on other stories, hoping the public will forget.

Remember this, forget that.

Journalism schools don’t teach their students that this is the way to do news. After graduating and finding jobs, young reporters catch on.

They catch on and go along.

That’s how their ideals crumble and disintegrate.

That’s how they become agents and blunt weapons for their bosses.

That’s how they become alcoholics and denizens traveling through a dim underworld of lies.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The notion that a political agenda underlies such scientific pronouncements is unthinkable.

So as an example, a very specific example of fake science, let’s look back at the attack on Oklahoma City.

On April 19, 1995, one-third of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City blew up, killing 169 people and wounding 680 others.

Three men were arrested and convicted: Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Michael Fortier. McVeigh was put to death on June 11, 2001, Nichols is currently serving multiple life sentences without the possibility of parole, and Fortier was sentenced to 12 years (he served that term and was released).

The official narrative of the bombing stated: A Ryder truck parked at the curb outside the Murrah Building contained barrels of ammonium nitrate plus fuel oil (ANFO bombs), and their coordinated explosion occurred shortly after 9AM on the morning of April 19th.

In addition to the deaths and the woundings, the explosion impacted 324 buildings and 86 cars in the area.

(In my 1995, book, “The Oklahoma City Bombing, the Suppressed Truth,” I laid to rest the claim that ANFO bombs could have caused that much damage; and more importantly, I showed that an explosion coming out of a Ryder truck at the curb could not have caused the particular profile of damage sustained by the Murrah Building.)

The vaunted FBI lab decided that, indeed, all the damage and death HAD been caused by ANFO bombs in the Ryder truck.

But wait.

Buckle up.

Two years after the bombing, on March 22, 1997, we had this from CNN: “The Justice Department inspector general’s office has determined that the FBI crime laboratory working on the Oklahoma City bombing case made ‘scientifically unsound’ conclusions that were ‘biased in favor of the prosecution,’ The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.”

“…[FBI] supervisors approved lab reports that they ‘cannot support’ and…FBI lab officials may have erred about the size of the blast, the amount of explosives involved and the type of explosives used in the bombing[!].”

“…harshest criticism was of David Williams, a supervisory agent in the [FBI] explosives unit, the paper [LA Times] said. Those flaws reportedly include the basis of his determination that the main charge of the explosion was ammonium nitrate. The inspector general called such a determination ‘inappropriate,’ the Times said.”

“…FBI officials found a receipt for ammonium nitrate at defendant [Terry] Nichols’ home and, because of that discovery, Williams slanted his conclusion to match the evidence.”

And with those revelations, the case, the investigation, the court trials, and press probes should have taken a whole new direction. But they didn’t.

The fake science was allowed to stand.

Therefore, other paths of investigation were abandoned. If bombs did, in fact, explode in the Ryder truck, but didn’t cause the major damage, then those bombs were a cover for other explosions of separate origin—for example, charges wired inside the columns of the Murrah Building, triggered at the exact moment the Ryder Truck explosion occurred.

Now we would be talking about a very sophisticated operation, far beyond the technical skills of McVeigh, Nichols, and Fortier.

Who knows where an honest in-depth investigation would have led? The whole idea of anti-government militia terrorism in the OKC attack—symbolized by McVeigh—was used by President Bill Clinton to bring the frightened public “back to the federal government” as their ultimate protector and savior.

Instead, the public might have been treated to a true story about a false flag operation, in which case President Clinton’s massaged message would never have been delivered.

But the fake crooked science pushed by the FBI lab was permitted to stand—despite exposure as fraud—and the story of militia terrorists trying to bring down the federal government was allowed to stand as well.

The year 1995 was rife with anti-government sentiment in America. This wasn’t merely a bunch of militias talking about insurrection. This was widespread dissatisfaction, on the part of many Americans, who were seeing federal power expand beyond any semblance of constitutionality.

As an object lesson, the Oklahoma Bombing was: “You see what happens when crazy people are allowed to own guns and oppose the government? Stop listening to anti-government rhetoric. It’s horribly dangerous. We, the government, are here to protect you. Come home to us. Have faith in us. We’ll punish the offenders. We’ll make America safe again. Let’s all come together and oppose these maniacs who want to destroy our way of life…”

The lesson worked.

Many scared Americans signed on to Clinton’s agenda.

And fake FBI science was used to bolster that agenda.

Even when exposed as fake by mainstream press outlets—however briefly, with no determined follow-up—the federal brainwashing held. The myth was stronger than reality.

If the federal government can egregiously lie about an event as huge as the Oklahoma Bombing, using fake science as a cover—what wouldn’t they lie about?

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Is the FBI a political organization run rampant, using trumped up charges against anyone with whom they or the political elites disagree?

That’s what you would be told from the likes of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and now Bernie Sanders. All three (or Bernie’s wife rather) have been embroiled in some sort of FBI shenanigans within the last year.

For Hillary, even though she was obviously a corrupt crook, she was not charged, despite Comey basically admitting she should be charged. But still, the FBI released a damaging letter just weeks before the election. Officially, this hurt an “innocent person”, but in real life, it was a meager attempt to assign blame to someone everyone knew could outmaneuver any authorities.

So in that case alone, no matter how you slice it, the FBI was alternatively corrupt, incompetent, complicit, and political.

Interestingly Clinton supporters had no problem wholeheartedly condemning the investigation into Clinton assuming it to be a political charade to damage an innocent woman. But then those same people had no problem flipping and assuming an FBI investigation to equal guilt as soon as Donald Trump was dragged into one.

But what is more, is that Trump was actually never personally under investigation by the FBI. So not only does the FBI have the power to ruin reputations over investigations, the agency doesn’t even have to have a case to bring its weight to bear.

Comey’s silence is what really made the media blow up over the whole Russian ties meme. No wonder Trump fired a guy who refused to publicly state the truth about the investigation, knowing his silence was fueling false rumors.

Bernie Sanders’ wife may have committed fraud while filling out applications for student aid for the now bankrupt Burlington College of which she was President. Go figure a Socialist ran a college into the ground. Maybe that’s why she had to lie on the applications; the true problem was she wasn’t being given enough of other people’s money!

But no, I am only joking, because an investigation does not itself prove guilt. In America, you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, despite how strong the evidence is against you. And that is the problem, that the FBI has massive power to throw their weight around, smear and drag down politicians all outside of their official capacity as an investigation agency.

Whoever directs the FBI will have to much power, because a simple letter or remaining silent can throw the media into a frenzy of finger-pointing, accusations, and false conclusions. They can turn nothing into a scandal and a scandal into nothing.

And while people sway back and forth, deciding based on the circumstances whether the FBI is legit or not, all I see is a big steaming bowl of corruption. It seems that an FBI investigation is just a political tool available for purchase. It seems also that the dropping of an FBI investigation is a political product available for purchase. Power is the currency in Washington, and politicians have countless ways to pay their debts or collect what is owed to them.

This behavior should not be surprising from such an organization as the FBI. Every level of government behaves the same way. They take your rights and sell them back to you for the price of a license. The IRS points a gun at your head and says the price to put it down is about 50% of what you earned last year. The local police do the same, as well as the state tax collectors and enforcers, and so on.

But there appears to be little coordination or organization in who the FBI strikes. Clearly, the Clinton investigation would have benefited Trump the most. And then, it was a Trump staffer from Vermont who made the original allegations against Sanders, which appear to be at least somewhat true. But Trump was also targeted by the FBI for some bad press at least.But despite all the investigations, nothing really comes of it.

Despite all the investigations, nothing really comes of it. So is the FBI really just the newest tabloid, the National Enquirer for politics, quietly dropping any initially well-publicized story that either turned out to be false or an inconvenient truth?

What conclusion can we come to other than that the FBI cannot be trusted to do its job, do its job right, and only do its job? And this is only talking about what disorganization the agency has fallen into over the past year or two. There are a million other reasons to believe that the FBI is hopelessly corrupt; just look briefly into the agency’s founding under J. Edgar Hoover or one of their darkest moments surrounding the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

The only real solution would be disbanding the FBI. It, like most other government agencies, has simply become a tool of politicians and bureaucrats to wield power and climb the DC ladder.

With most government agencies, we should be asking, would this organization still exist in a free market? The way the current FBI behaves it would likely see customers and investors flee. The agency cannot be trusted and is currently a larger threat to individuals’ rights and freedoms than it is a protector of those liberties.

Where was the devastating revelation about Trump’s crimes during James Comey’s Congressional testimony yesterday?

“Who produced this stinker? Find out and fire him. I thought I was the head of a movie studio. Apparently, I’m marketing sleeping pills. I conked out after watching five minutes of Comey…”

If James Comey’s testimony before Congress yesterday were a Hollywood movie, and if the press weren’t obliged to make a very big deal out of it, the studio that produced it would have shut it down and eaten the box office losses. The movie theaters would have been empty, except for a few stragglers getting out of the rain.

We did learn that Comey leaked his “memo” of a conversation with Trump (about the Michael Flynn investigation) to the press. So the FBI director is a leaker. And we only have Comey’s word that his “memo” notes were correct and accurate.

Then Comey stated that Attorney General Loretta Lynch told him to call his investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server a “matter,” not an investigation. So the former Attorney General was a partisan Hillary supporter.

Comey asserted that Trump “pressured” him to cease investigating Michael Flynn. Trump didn’t order Comey to stop that probe. And Trump could have, because the president, in the chain of command, is over and above the Justice Department and the FBI. Oops. That’s right.

Attorney Alan Dershowitz : “Comey confirmed that under our Constitution, the president has the authority to direct the FBI to stop investigating any individual. I paraphrase, because the transcript is not yet available: the president can, in theory, decide who to investigate, who to stop investigating, who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. The president is the head of the unified executive branch of government, and the Justice Department and the FBI work under him and he may order them to do what he wishes.”

“As a matter of law, Comey is 100 percent correct. As I have long argued, and as Comey confirmed in his written statement, our history shows that many presidents—from Adams to Jefferson, to Lincoln, to Roosevelt, to Kennedy, to Bush 1, and to Obama—have directed the Justice Department with regard to ongoing investigations. The history is clear, the precedents are clear, the constitutional structure is clear, and common sense is clear.”

“Comey’s remarks, released Wednesday in advance of Thursday’s Senate hearing, confirmed previous statements by Trump that Comey had told him three times that he was not personally being investigated amid the FBI’s wide-ranging inquiry into Russian meddling in the election and the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russia.”

So…where were Comey’s revelations yesterday? Nowhere. Where were his explosive charges about Trump’s crimes? Nowhere.

Comey should really take a long vacation. He should disappear from public life for quite some time. He’s embarrassing himself.

Recall the last bad movie Comey starred in. The Hillary email server scandal. The FBI probe was off, it was on, it was off. Early in this fiasco, Comey delivered a televised press conference. FBI directors don’t hold press conferences, but Comey did. He simultaneously played the role of FBI head, grand jury, Attorney General, and Constitutional jurist. He only held one of those jobs, but that didn’t stop him. He laid out, end to end, Hillary Clinton’s violations of federal law governing the handling of classified materials. He failed to note that “hostile intent” is no part of that law. He failed to note that negligence is the only standard for prosecution. He said that since Hillary (who was surely negligent) didn’t intend to cause harm to the nation, he wasn’t recommending prosecution. Now THAT should have been the subject of a Congressional hearing. But it wasn’t.

Before that, Comey starred in a little known movie called HSBC.

In 2013, before his appointment as FBI director, Comey was brought in by the scandal-ridden HSBC Bank, to oversee efforts to clean up its act—in particular, money laundering for drug cartels.

Comey was positioned as the face of honesty and competence for HSBC.

How well did he do, before he exited his position? How much crime and how many criminals did he leave behind?

Three years later, after Comey had departed, The NY Times wrote: “HSBC Bank Executives Face Charges in $3.5 Billion Currency [Fraud] Case … Traders Use Front-Running to Profit From Client Orders…”

I guess Comey didn’t clean up the HSBC mess. There were a few things he didn’t notice while he was there. A few thing he left behind. A few billion things.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

A representative of the FBI was grilled by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform regarding the agency’s growing biometric database.

Washington D.C. – On Wednesday the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform questioned Kimberly Del Greco, Deputy Assistant Director at the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division, about why the bureau broke the law by failing to file a privacy impact statement acknowledging the collection of millions of Americans’ faces for the agency’s new biometric identification system. The FBI’s Next Generation Identification (NGI) system is made up of fingerprints, iris scans, faceprints, and other facial recognition data. The NGI organizes Americans’ biometric data into a single file that includes personal and biographic data like name, home address, ID number, immigration status, age, race, etc.

The Committee reports that nearly half of all adult Americans’ photographs are in the database. The 2013 U.S. Census Bureau estimated that there are over 242 million adults living in the U.S. If the Committee’s numbers are correct, over 121 million adults are in the FBI’s database. Other revelations include that 18 states have a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the FBI to share photos with the federal government, including from state departments of motor vehicles (DMV). According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center:

With NGI, the FBI will expand the number of uploaded photographs and provide investigators with ‘automated facial recognition search capability.’ The FBI intends to do this by eliminating restrictions on the number of submitted photographs (including photographs that are not accompanied by tenprint fingerprints) and allowing the submission of non-facial photographs (e.g. scars or tattoos).The FBI also widely disseminates this NGI data. According to the FBI’s latest NGI fact sheet, 24,510 local, state, tribal, federal and international partners submitted queries to NGI in September 2016.

Committee Chairman Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R- Utah) scolded Ms. Del Greco for the FBI’s failures. “The failure here is years after you were supposed to make it public,” Chaffetz stated. “You were using it in real world circumstances, you were actually using it and didn’t issue the statement.” Chaffetz also asked Del Greco whether the FBI had plans to gather faceprints via social media. “Are you collecting that information that is available on social media?,” the chairman demanded. “We do not have any other photos in our repository.”

Alvaro Bedoya, Executive Director, Center on Privacy and Technology Georgetown Law, questioned the FBI’s claim, stating that the bureau has access to driver’s license photos. “We have access to that data but we do not use it,” Del Greco answered. Jennifer Lynch, Senior Staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation also stated that the FBI has access to “civil photos” in the NGI database.

Rep. Paul Mitchell (R-MI) also questioned Del Greco regarding the FBI’s activities. “I think the issue goes beyond the First Amendment concerns that were expressed. . .and is broader,” Mitchell stated during the panel. “I don’t want to just protect someone if they’re in a political protest from being identified, the reality is we should protect everybody unless there is a valid documented criminal justice action. Why should my photo. . .be subject because I get a driver’s license, to access?” Rep. John Duncan (R-TN) expressed similar fear regarding the possibility that the expectation of privacy is quickly fading.Duncan worried that Americans looking at the information, “would wonder if were ending up in a federal police state that’s gotten totally out of control, and has far too much power.”

Duncan is not far off. The databases include photos those of people who aren’t suspected of any criminal activity that come from driver’s license and passport and visa photos. Other issues with the FBI database include misidentifying females and blacks at a higher rate. The FBI is currently facing a lawsuit from EPIC regarding the database. EPIC is asking a judge to force the FBI to release records about its plan to share the biometric data with the U.S. Department of Defense. EPIC filed a Freedom of Information Act request in 2015, but the FBI has so far refused to release the 35 pages of responsive records.

EPIC and privacy advocates are concerned about the potential for cases of mistaken identity and abuse of the collected data. EPIC also argues “the FBI stated that ‘[i]ncreased collection and retention of personally identifiable information presents a correspondingly increased risk that the FBI will then be maintaining more information that might potentially be subject to loss or unauthorized use.”

In 2014, the EFF received documents from the FBI related to the NGI system. At the time the FBI estimated the facial recognition component of NGI would include as many as 52 million face images by 2015. The Committee’s hearing on Wednesday indicated that number was more than double as of 2017. The danger of abuse from facial recognition programs is on the rise. Activist Post recently highlighted a new report from Georgetown Law University’s Center for Privacy and Technology that details how law enforcement is using facial recognition software without the knowledge or consent of the people. The report, “The Perpetual Line-Up: Unregulated Police Face Recognition in America,” examines several cases of misuse or abuse of facial recognition technology.

How can we protect our privacy in a world that is quickly becoming a digitally interconnected panopticon of audio recording devices, faceprint collection machines, and cameras from every direction? The answer is not simple. Most of us live our lives with these devices and use them for several hours each day. When we are staring into our phones to send text messages, the camera is potentially stealing our faceprint and sending it to your cell phone provider and/or law enforcement. We are giving away our privacy for convenience, luxury, and entertainment. How can we stop the fast march to a total surveillance state? Perhaps abandoning all technology and living off the land. Short of that, we need to take measures to encrypt our communication and practice a culture of security.

The FBI: The Silent Terror Of The Fourth Reich … Lately, there’s been a lot of rhetoric comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. The concern is that a Nazi-type regime may be rising in America … That process, however, began a long time ago. … In fact, following the second World War, the U.S. government recruited Hitler’s employees, adopted his protocols, embraced his mindset about law and order, implemented his tactics in incremental steps, and began to lay the foundations for the rise of the Fourth Reich. -Rutherford Institute

The FBI’s Fourth Reich began as a result of German efficiency and has by now silently taken over all aspects of the FBI. So impressed was the FBI with German authoritarianism, that the FBI recruited at least 1,000 thousand Nazis over the years and especially at the end of the war.

While thousands of Nazis were allowed to immigrate and were given disguised identifies, Jews were turned away from the US at the same time. They were supposedly considered a security risk.

American taxpayers have been helping to support these ex-Nazis ever since. Those who have attempted to expose the US’s involvement in harboring Nazis have been attacked by the FBI, harassed and more recently declared a threat to national security.

As if the government’s covert, taxpayer-funded employment of Nazis after World War II wasn’t bad enough, U.S. government agencies—the FBI, CIA and the military—have fully embraced many of the Nazi’s well-honed policing tactics, and have used them repeatedly against American citizens.

These are not tactics used by constitutional republics, where the rule of law and the rights of the citizenry reign supreme. Rather, they are the hallmarks of authoritarian regimes, where the only law that counts comes in the form of heavy-handed, unilateral dictates from a supreme ruler who uses a secret police to control the populace.

It is the FBI more than any other agency that wields these virtually unbridled powers domestically. It tactics include, “surveillance, disinformation, blackmail, entrapment, intimidation, harassment and indoctrination, governmental overreach, abuse, misconduct, trespassing, enabling criminal activity, and damaging private property” … and more.

Post-9/11 Congress has virtually abdicated responsibility, partially because by law, the FBI is supposed to collect a dossier on them. The FBI pretty much does as it wants beyond the reach of laws that would limit its abusive power or make it subject once more to constitutional limits.

It illegally operates over 50 offices abroad, though its brief is supposedly only domestic. It has set up its own illegal repository of “profiles of tens of thousands of Americans and legal residents who are not accused of any crime.” Increasingly this database is available to private entities for routine background checks.

The agency has a budget of over $8 billion and issues tens of thousands of National Security Letters that collects financial records and other personal information on a very questionable basis.

Law enforcement agencies also using social media tracking software to monitor Facebook, Twitter and Instagram posts. Moreover, secret FBI rules also allow agents to spy on journalists without significant judicial oversight.

Much like the Gestapo’s ability to profile based on race and religion, and its assumption of guilt by association, the FBI’s approach to pre-crime allows it to profile Americans based on a broad range of characteristics including race and religion.

The FBI these days can label almost anyone a domestic terrorist and you may be marked as one if you:

-express libertarian philosophies (statements, bumper stickers)-exhibit Second Amendment-oriented views (NRA or gun club membership)-read survivalist literature, including apocalyptic fictional books-show signs of self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies)-fear an economic collapse-buy gold and barter items-subscribe to religious views concerning the book of Revelation-voice fears about Big Brother or big government-expound about constitutional rights and civil liberties-believe in a New World Order conspiracy

You don’t have to be vocal about such views. The FBI will come to you, as it routinely infiltrates groups and businesses of all kinds. If you have “anti-government” sentiments you can easily be caught up in FBI investigations and blackmail and entrapment.

In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks the FBI started to create “forward leaning—preventative—prosecutions” that ensnare and utilize informants who are given permission to break the law to bring the case to a successful conclusion. Sometimes these informants first commit crimes that get them caught by the FBI, and some speculate even “mind control” may be experimented with.

We have our own experiences with this sort of FBI intimidation. One of us was actually picked up by FBI wiretaps involving 9/11 information. The phone tapping led to the FBI – or some similar – agency writing us emails suggesting that we cooperate with them in investigating off shore activity that some involved in The Daily Bell were supposedly involved with.

The emails were signed by someone called Nalum and then more recently by someone who called himself “God.” These emails have kept up on and off for an incredible seven years now, which shows the extent of institutional memory. The group has even written an expose of supposed activities using a spurious author who supposedly has no affiliation with police work but obviously does.

Even more incredibly, the FBI, or whatever it is, has decided the way to expose The Daily Bell is via an accusation of Fake News. The Daily Bell has been put on a list of groups that are supposedly involved with producing Fake News, including The Drudge Report and others.

When the time comes, the Fake News accusations will be triggered and the article and other information they have gathered over seven years will be suddenly “discovered” and further publicized. The idea is to avoid exposing the initial methodology of the 9/11 wiretapping which was patently illegal and outrageous.

That is our “FBI” story which has led at least one of us to abandon the US and travel abroad, for which he later received a death threat suggesting he kill himself. This is a tactic the FBI has used since encouraging Martin Luther King Jr. to kill himself in a letter they sent him.

Conclusion: The article, finishes by explaining that “When and if a true history of the FBI is ever written, it will not only track the rise of the American police state but it will also chart the decline of freedom in America.” We can certainly vouch for that and for the FBI’s insatiable, illegal energy in pursuing people who are writing columns and articles it doesn’t like.

Watergate eventually became the story of two young rookie reporters who exposed and took down a president. Nixon.

Try to think of another major story in your lifetime where the reporters themselves took center stage, and in the process nearly eclipsed their own work. Odd.

One of them, Bob Woodward, expanded his fame. The powers-that-be permitted him to go on and, with extraordinary access, write books criticizing future presidents. Woodward became the in-house attack dog. Mr. Limited Hangout.

The other reporter, Carl Bernstein, faded into relative obscurity. Well, after all, he began exposing many journalists’ connections to the CIA. That wasn’t a productive career move. It was, perhaps, a case of him biting the CIA hand that, without his knowledge, had fed him during his Watergate investigation.

What Woodward and Bernstein didn’t know, during Watergate, was this: On the mega-corporate front, the Rockefeller proposal for world control—“free trade, no tariffs”—was advancing toward fruition, and Richard Nixon was standing in the way.

This man, a crook, a president, a liar, an insecure parody of a head of state, Richard Nixon, had gone off script. He had REALLY gone off script.

In an effort to bolster US companies and protect them from foreign competition inside the United States, Nixon began erecting tariffs on a range of goods imported into the US.

If this Nixon economic plan spread to other countries, the entire global program to install “free trade” and mega-corporate emperors on their thrones for a thousand years could crash and burn.

Nixon was a Rockefeller man. He was owned by them. He’d been rescued from financial ruin by The Family, and now he was in the White House undermining their greatest dream. You can’t overstate the degree of the betrayal, from the Rockefeller point of view. You simply can’t.

Something had to be done. The president had to go. This was the real motivation behind Watergate. This was the real op. Yes, there were sub-motives and smaller contexts, as in any major op, but the prime mover was: get Free Trade back on track, and get suitable revenge on the puppet in the White House who went off the script.

Any historian who overlooks this is an outright fool or a deceiver.

Whether the Watergate break-in was planned to serve the higher goal or was pounced upon, after the fact, as the grand opportunity, is beside the point. It was there, and it was used. It became the starting point for the Washington Post, its publisher, veteran editor, and two cub reporters to break Richard Nixon into pieces.

And if the Rockefeller people needed an inside man at the White House to report on the deteriorating mental state of the president as he heated up in the pressure cooker, they had Henry Kissinger, who was another Rockefeller operative.

The Washington Post was owned by Katharine Graham, who was herself a very close friend of the Rockefeller Family. Years later, she would be awarded a medal of honor by the University of Chicago, an institution founded by John D. Rockefeller. On her death, a paid heartfelt obituary was inserted in the NY Times by the trustees, faculty, and staff of Rockefeller University, where she had served on the University Council.

And she and Nixon already hated each other by the early 1970s.

The managing editor of the Washington Post, Ben Bradlee, was an old hand at writing promotional material, having worked in Europe crafting releases for a CIA front group. A former Naval intelligence man, he liked one of his cub reporters, Bob Woodward, who had also worked for the Navy in intelligence.

When Woodward came to Bradlee with a story about a man in a parking garage who was passing secrets from the White House/FBI about Watergate, we are supposed to believe that Bradlee naturally responded by giving the green light to a major investigation. Woodward and Carl Bernstein, another cub, would undertake it—with nothing more than Bradlee’s reputation and the future survival of the Post and Katharine Graham’s empire on the line if the cubs got it wrong.

We are supposed to believe Bradlee gave the green light, without knowing who the man in the garage was, without knowing whether Woodward could be trusted, without even getting permission from Graham to move ahead.

Bradlee, a grizzled veteran of Washington, understanding exactly what Washington could do to people who told secrets out of school, just said to Woodward and Bernstein, “You’d better be damned sure you’re right, because otherwise we’re all in trouble.”

Two untested cub reporters set loose in a cage with tigers.

The odds of that happening were nil. Bradlee had to know a great deal from the beginning, and he had to have Katharine Graham’s signal to move. The series of breaking stories would be spoon-fed to the unsuspecting young reporters. They would be consumed by their ambition to advance their careers. Bradlee was confident because he had the essentials of the scandal in hand—all the way up to Nixon, the target—well in advance of his two reporters.

To have proceeded otherwise—Bradlee was simply not that kind of fool. Whatever Deep Throat, the man in the garage, was dishing out to Woodward didn’t really matter. Bradlee already had it in his pocket. Deep Throat was merely a contrivance to allow the story to expand and grow by steps, and to permit Woodward and Bernstein to believe they were peeling layers from an onion.

The man behind the curtain was David Rockefeller.

After the whole scandal had been exposed and Nixon had flown away, in disgrace, from the White House for the last time, David Rockefeller addressed a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce of the European Community (October, 1975). He was there to allay their fears about Nixon’s betrayal of the new economic world order. There was really very little he needed to say. David had already created (1973) the free-trade Trilateral Commission, an exceedingly powerful force. And a new puppet, Gerald Ford was in the White House; and Ford had appointed David’s brother, Nelson Rockefeller, as his vice president.

David told the European attendees, “Fortunately, there are no signs that these anti-[free] trade measures [of Nixon] are supported by the [Ford] Administration.”

And that was that. The global mega-corporate colossus was back on track.

The temporary rip in the Matrix had been repaired.

On a far lower level of power politics, everyone and his brother were consumed with the contrails of the scandal that had driven away Nixon and his colleagues. People were congratulating each other on the expunging of a corrupt conspiracy from public life.

The real players, of course, were still in place, stronger than ever. David Rockefeller and his aides were preparing for an even greater coup. They had chosen an obscure man with zero name recognition to be the next president of the United States. Jimmy Carter. Carter would function to forward the goals of the Trilateral Commission in bold view of anyone who knew the score.

And every president since Carter, regardless of party affiliation, has supported and extended those Globalist-corporate goals. No questions asked. Obama, who fatuously remarked during his 2008 election campaign that NAFTA “needs to be revisited,” has taken his cues like any other puppet.

When, from this perspective, you examine the global takeover of land and resources by GMO agribusiness, the destruction of small family farms, the plundering of natural resources in the Third World, the use of UN “peacekeepers” and “humanitarian groups” and intelligence agencies to create a wedge, for corporations, into these areas, you see the hand of the Rockefeller plan.

When you see the destruction of currencies and the escalation of insupportable debt, the incursion of a bewildering number of UN-affiliated groups sinking their teeth into local communities all over the planet to “manage sustainable development,” you see the plan.

And when you see “free trade” and no tariffs, you see the essentials nuts and bolts of the plan.

The innocuous-sounding “free trade” policy is the number-one priority of every American president. He must do two things: rarely speak of it, and allow it to move forward. That’s all. In return, he gets to act as if he’s the most powerful man in the world.

But if he wobbles and considers taking up a position against free trade (corporate domination of the planet), he can look back and see what happened to Richard Nixon. He can learn from that example.

He can re-learn the famous words of Zbiggie Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission and David Rockefeller’s intellectual flunkey: “The nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”

Like Jimmy Carter, a president can espouse the most wide-ranging humanitarian philosophy and ascend to a cloud of beautiful altruism, admired by all. As long as he sticks to the plan.

If not, agents and reporters coming out of nowhere will try to demolish him.

—Suddenly, a swaggering, self-congratulatory, fast-talking cowboy named Donald Trump appeared as a presidential candidate. And lo and behold, he attacked Globalism by name. He claimed he would dump it in favor of American nationalism. He repeated this oath many times. And he won the election, unseating a lifelong Globalist named Hillary Clinton.

Whether Trump intends on keeping his promises and going up against the Rockefeller colossus, he has spoken of that which must not be uttered in public: the crimes of Globalism and free trade.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.